swisstopo_get_oereb_extract

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the constraint that a supported canton is required, but does not elaborate on behavior for unsupported cantons or other edge cases. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, using structured XML tags (use_case, important_notes) to organize information efficiently. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose and prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could mention that the output includes detailed restrictions and how to handle unsupported cantons. Nonetheless, with annotations and output schema, it is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (egrid with example, canton with short description, topics as filter, lang as language). The description does not add any further semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves public-law restrictions (ÖREB) for a parcel using an EGRID. The use case explicitly answers the question 'Welche Nutzungsbeschränkungen gelten für diese Parzelle?'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like swisstopo_get_egrid which retrieves EGRID, not restrictions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a use case clarifying when to use the tool, and an important note that it requires a supported canton. It also cross-references swisstopo_get_egrid for obtaining the EGRID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.